Entanglement Theory Query

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

Re: Entanglement Theory Query

Postby dandelion on October 3rd, 2018, 3:07 pm 

Sorry, things became busy and I haven’t had the time I’d like to think about this nor will for a while further but have wanted to write something in the meantime. I’ve just focused on areas surrounding notions I like although confusing for me, but which seem suited to some questions, and I like seeing some other, thoughtful ones presented well. Even so, I’m not very sure of objections if there. I don’t have any desire to dispute accuracy, it all seems amazingly good. I haven’t read his books. I was thinking more about a range of formulation and think objections might have been just about paths. But even re that, if a description involves averaging of quantities with cancelling out, reinforcing, anomalies, following classical action histories with different times and discretised, bounded etc., isn’t it looking a bit like more likely coinciding changes, looking at it differently, and used with other techniques like stats in renormalisation and such?

On the argument related to recent thought experiments, if there were other explanations besides temporal ones perhaps they could potentially have similar or different implications. Does the latest possible no-go version differ much to previous ones and responses, for as for those some less many worldly interpretations accept distinct observers may have different accounts of the same sequence of events, like G-R?
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 389
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Entanglement Theory Query

Postby dandelion on October 7th, 2018, 2:28 pm 

Just more on paths, obviously they are considered in various interpretations, and for one example I think Fay Dowker seems to emphasise them, or for another example, one of those interpretations is favoured by Gell-Mann, and discussed a bit in that context here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-7VOAVJjt0 .
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 389
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Entanglement Theory Query

Postby hyksos on October 8th, 2018, 3:16 am 

dandelion » October 7th, 2018, 10:28 pm wrote:Just more on paths, obviously they are considered in various interpretations, and for one example I think Fay Dowker seems to emphasise them, or for another example, one of those interpretations is favoured by Gell-Mann, and discussed a bit in that context here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-7VOAVJjt0 .

This is the best video I think I've seen all year.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Entanglement Theory Query

Postby dandelion on October 8th, 2018, 11:41 am 

Thanks. The post didn’t follow as much form previous discussion in this thread as considering some wider questions. I’d listened to a longer version and didn’t want to suggest anything too long so found a part and then realised later it didn’t contain as much as I’d hoped, but very pleased you liked it as it touches on some of the sorts of thoughts I’ve found helpful too.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 389
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Sum one (1) to love.

Postby Faradave on October 8th, 2018, 1:06 pm 

"Sum over histories" is the same as "sum over paths", allowing for propagation time. Either way, it's important to recall that these are not classical paths in that they are probabilistically "dim", as I explained to DragonFly in another post.

We're never simply adding multiple paths. We're instead scraping together (reassembling) a single path that was "smeared" into a field. The single path that is ultimately measured arises from its former existence as a single path in instantaneous superposition. The "sum" never exceeds 1, i.e. 100% of a classical path.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1852
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Sum one (1) to love.

Postby hyksos on October 11th, 2018, 12:25 pm 

Faradave » October 8th, 2018, 9:06 pm wrote:"Sum over histories" is the same as "sum over paths", allowing for propagation time. Either way, it's important to recall that these are not classical paths in that they are probabilistically "dim", as I explained to DragonFly in another post.

We're never simply adding multiple paths. We're instead scraping together (reassembling) a single path that was "smeared" into a field. The single path that is ultimately measured arises from its former existence as a single path in instantaneous superposition. The "sum" never exceeds 1, i.e. 100% of a classical path.

(I hate to be the self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy here but..)

Regarding this smearing issue. It turns out that there is a dimness factor applied to the outside-the-classical paths included in the path integral. The textbook will not call this "dimming" they usually call it weighting. So each path is weighted by its deviation from the Principle of Least Action.

If you are ever thumbing through a textbook (, or maybe wikipedia if you're unadventurous,) you might catch the phrase "each path is weighted by the action" , or a near variation of that. The end result of all this chicanery is that the path of the particle that is closest to a classical trajectory contributes more to the prediction than bizarre un-classical paths do.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
dandelion liked this post


Re: SMoPP on Top

Postby Faradave on October 11th, 2018, 11:34 pm 

hyksos wrote:I hate to be the self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy

That's fine. My intention is to explain what the Standard Model so accurately describes. There's should be no conflict.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1852
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Entanglement Theory Query

Postby Event Horizon on October 20th, 2018, 8:26 pm 

My main problem with the many worlds theory is that there is no apparent basis for it in reality. There is very little by way of proof to suggest it is an operational reality. I think it is important we can resolve this defininatively somehow.
User avatar
Event Horizon
Member
 
Posts: 418
Joined: 05 Mar 2018
Location: England somewhere.


Re: Entanglement Theory Query

Postby Event Horizon on September 29th, 2019, 10:02 pm 

Was just revisiting this, it's really grown.
Information about a paired couplet sought by us collapses the superposition state. We don't really argue about information in that context. Quantum information and how it works, it's transmission seems to lie out of the bounds of physics, only, could it simply transcend known physics?
User avatar
Event Horizon
Member
 
Posts: 418
Joined: 05 Mar 2018
Location: England somewhere.


Re: Descriiption Prescription

Postby Faradave on September 29th, 2019, 11:59 pm 

Though many physics mysteries exist, that doesn't stop us from making good use of mysterious phenomena. Entanglement is at the heart of quantum computing, which is making steady progress based on an adequate description. A full explanation is preferable because of what it contributes to optimizing and expanding those applications. But it's not necessary to begin with.

Ancient agriculture made great use of calendars long before we understood why the seasons change cyclically.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1852
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Entanglement Theory Query

Postby bangstrom on September 30th, 2019, 1:45 am 

Event Horizon » September 29th, 2019, 9:02 pm wrote:Was just revisiting this, it's really grown.
Information about a paired couplet sought by us collapses the superposition state. We don't really argue about information in that context. Quantum information and how it works, it's transmission seems to lie out of the bounds of physics, only, could it simply transcend known physics?


Richard Feynman said we may one day be able to explain all of quantum physics by saying, ”Remember that experiment with the two slits? Well, it works the same way...”
He also said quantum physics doesn’t violate the laws of physics. It only violates our understanding of the laws.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Faradave liked this post


Re: Entanglement Theory Query

Postby bangstrom on September 30th, 2019, 1:51 am 

Event Horizon » October 20th, 2018, 7:26 pm wrote:My main problem with the many worlds theory is that there is no apparent basis for it in reality. There is very little by way of proof to suggest it is an operational reality. I think it is important we can resolve this defininatively somehow.


In the many worlds theory, there may be a place where these things are already resolved.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Previous

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests